Skip to main content

Steps to get back your property from illegal possession

 Illegal possession is a possession on which legal sanctions are imposed because the property is not lawfully possessed. When broken into simpler words, Illegal possession or occupancy is that kind of possession which is obtained by unlawful or illegal means by the illegal occupant by producing false statements, documents or by coercion, undue influence, etc. over the rightful owner of the property so as to illegally possess the property.


Connect with an expert lawyer for your legal issue

 


Generally, illegal possession is carried out in 2 ways

1.    When some random people falsify documents and illegally occupy the property by coercion (use of force). This illegal practice is common among some since they practice this as their profession. Regrettably, sometimes certain local authorities also assist these people in such unlawful practices.


2.    Such an illegal possession can also happen when a tenant refuses to vacate your premises. The most common defense used by tenants is that of adverse possession. It is advised to make a proper rent agreement before renting out your accommodation as well as acquire strong measures to avoid getting involved in such situations. These situations mostly arise when properties that are illegally occupied are left unsupervised by the caretakers, tenants with unspecified status, or properties that have been lying abandoned for years which directly makes them an easy target for such notorious people.


Adverse possession is when the rightful owner of the property loses his rights of ownership resulting from inaction on his part to get rid off a trespasser/ occupant within a statutory time period (12 years under Indian law) from his property. After the completion of the statutory limitation period for removing the trespasser/ occupant, the rightful owner is restricted from initiating any legal proceeding to gain back the possession on his property and thus, allows the trespasser to acquire the title to that property by adverse possession.


The main aim of this article is to prove that ownership without possession is absolutely meaningless since you don’t get to enjoy the fruits of the property.

 


Illegal possession, trespassing cases are most common when it comes to NRIs. The reasons for this are–

They don’t reside in these properties, don’t have the possession of the property at all times.


They are unable to make frequent visits, so they end up giving the possession/ control of the property to friends, acquaintances, and relatives.


Apart from this, with time many of the occupants, relatives, friends feel they own the place since there is no one to monitor and supervise the property.


Oral and unregistered agreements with tenants/ caretakers are quite common resulting in illegal possession.


Properties without caretakers and tenants which are not frequently visited by the owners themselves are a great catch for land mafia to trespass and occupy illegally.



The real meaning of possession

Possession means having the actual control over an object/ thing, whether you own it or not. However, even the person with the possession of the thing enjoys certain legal protection against third parties even if he is not the owner. This protection is given against any unlawful act of violence against the person in possession.


The rights of persons with possession come from the fact that the owner – NRIs, in this case- haven’t looked at these properties for years and they continue enjoying rights. Moreover, as mentioned earlier too, trespassers can forge documents making it difficult for them to be evicted.


Consult: Top Property Lawyers in India

 


How can you avoid your property from getting illegally occupied?

The best way to regain control and restore possession of your property legally is going to the court and asking for justice. Civil court remedies are easily available where personal appearances required in the court can be controlled by competent and chosen lawyers. Legal remedies are available under the law to restore the possession of properties and even protect any third party trespassing or illegal interfering with the peaceful possession.

 


1. Prevention is better than cure

You should create true caretaker contracts and prepare well-defined tenancy contracts. In simple terms, you must always define the status and/ or duty of the occupant having the possession of the property.


You must not let any person retain the possession of your house for a long time. You should keep changing occupancy in the property to not let it get illegally dispossessed.

 


2.   Actual legal measures

Under Section- 5 of the Specific Relief Act, a person who is dispossessed of his property can get possession by title.


Under Section- 6 of the Specific Relief Act, a person dispossessed may recover his right merely by proving previous possession and subsequent illegal dispossession.


Section- 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code lays down procedure where dispute concerning land or water is likely to cause a breach of peace.


A person who realizes trespassing or illegal dispossession can file a written complaint with the police against it.


A written complaint can be sent to the Superintendent of Police (S.P) of the district where the property is situated by way of registered post or by visiting the concerned police station.


In case the Superintendent of Police fails to acknowledge the complaint, a personal complaint in the concerned court can be filed through an advocate and the case can then be followed through a Special Power of Attorney when the owner cannot make his presence in the court.


Related Post: How to get your property back?


Connect with an expert lawyer for your legal issue

 


What can a right competent lawyer offer you?

An advocate can provide full support, competence, and efficiency in court as well as clarity in legal representation to cope up with all such cases. A great number of such dedicated and competent lawyers across the country are available to handle such matters even in case of an NRI who might not be available to be physically present.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more